Bombay High Court
SHAIKH AJIMODDIN JILANI ALIAS MUNNA SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
In the absence of material directly linking any accused to the fatal act and after prolonged pre‑trial custody, bail must be granted with stringent conditions.
Summary
The court considered bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for four accused charged with murder and related offences under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was assaulted by the accused after a quarrel, leading to fatal abdominal injuries, but the evidence consisted mainly of a post‑mortem report and CCTV footage that did not show the assault or identify the specific assailant. The defence argued that there were no eye‑witnesses, no weapon, and the investigation did not attribute the vital blow to any particular accused, making continued detention unnecessary. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offence and the risk of evidence tampering. After weighing the prima facie material, the length of pre‑trial detention (over seven months), and the lack of specific incriminating evidence against any individual, the judge ordered that bail be granted with stringent conditions to prevent interference with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a murder case where the prosecution lacks direct evidence identifying the assailant.
- Whether the absence of eye‑witnesses and weapon, and the inability to attribute the fatal injury to a specific accused, justifies continued pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 115(2), 191(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- section 483
- evidence
- tampering
- post‑mortem
- blunt trauma
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45841
1000-BA-1345-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1345 OF 2026
Shaikh Ajimoddin Jilani @ Munna Shaikh ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra and Another ..RESPONDENTS
WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1408 OF 2026
Sanjay Janardhan Gitte ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1400 OF 2026
Shaikh Shakil Rauf ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1473 OF 2026
Madhukar Goroba Ingle ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
....
Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for applicant in BA/1345/2026
Mr. S.B. Solanke, Advocate for applicants in BA/1408/2026 and BA/1400/2026
Mr. V.H. Solanke, Advocate h/f Mr. R.T. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant in
BA/1473/2026
Mr. K.K. Naik, A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2
Mr. U.M. Maske Patil, Advocate for Assist to A.P.P.
....
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.P.P. for State
and learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No.2 – informant.
1 / 6
1000-BA-1345-26.odt
2. Present applications are preferred under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection
with Crime No. 38 of 2026 dated 15th February, 2026 registered with Yermala
Police Station, Dist. Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections
103(1), 191(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The applicants are the original accused persons and they were
arrested on 15th February, 2026. Investigation is complete and charge-sheet has
also been filed in the present offence. The applicants are awaiting trial. On
query, learned A.P.P. submits that the charges are yet to be framed.
4. The prosecution story in brief is that deceased – Satish Munde had
accompanied present applicants to Mahakali Kala Kednre on the evening of 12 th
February, 2026. According to prosecution, while returning in the car of
applicant, after midnight, a quarrel arose between the applicants and the
deceased and there was abuses hurled against each other. The prosecution
alleges that the applicants, therefore, stopped the car near the highway and
assaulted the deceased – Satish with fists and kicks. It is further alleged that
the applicant – Shaikh Ajimoddin subsequently had carried Satish, who was
unconscious and unresponsive, to the house of the informant. Satish was taken
for medical treatment and the doctors, after examining him, had declared him
dead. The present informant, who is father of deceased – Satish, therefore
registered the F.I.R. on 15th February, 2026 alleging commission of murder of
Satish at the hands of present applicants.
2 / 6
1000-BA-1345-26.odt
5. Learned counsel for the applicants jointly submitted that there is no
eye witness to the alleged roadside assault. The reliance of prosecution on the
CCTV footage only shows that Satish was walking out Mahakali Kala Kendre,
but does not reveal the incident of assault and neither shows any particular act
of assault at the behest of present applicants. Admittedly, it is not the case of
prosecution that any weapon was used in the alleged offence. Learned counsel
submit that investigation does not identify as to who inflicted the vital blow on
the abdomen of Satish or the prosecution material does not furnish anything
that establishes a shared intention of the applicants to cause death of Satish.
Reliance is also placed on the conduct of applicant – Shaikh Ajimoddin in
bringing Satish home and suspecting not taking him to the hospital. All the four
applicants are in custody since 15th February, 2026, and therefore, their further
detention would not serve the investigating purpose.
6. Learned A.P.P. opposed the bail applications and submitted that the
applicants and the deceased left Mahakali Kala Kendra together. He further
submitted that Satish, when was brought home, was unresponsive and
unconscious. The postmortem report reveals that death was due to hemorrhagic
shock due to blunt trauma to abdomen. Prosecution also relies on the
surrounding circumstances such as spot panchanama and medical report and
the opinion of doctor for cause of death. Learned A.P.P. also raised concern
about the present applicants, who are residents of same village and they have
acquaintance with the local witnesses. He apprehends that there is likelihood
3 / 6
1000-BA-1345-26.odt
that the present applicants, after release on bail, may try to interfere and
tamper with the evidence and the local witnesses.
7. The death and seriousness of abdominal injuries cannot be
minimized in any manner. The postmortem also records internal bleeding. The
injuries sustained to the deceased are supported by the medical opinion stating
that blunt trauma to abdomen is a cause of death of deceased – Satish.
8. However, it is pertinent to note that the medical record does not give
a word to the extent of identifying the assailants or the exact role of each of the
assailants in causing the abdominal injury which is resulted into death of
deceased – Satish. The CCTV footage inspection records Satish leaving
Mahakali Kala Kendra walking and does not depict of assault at that place. The
material concerning the journey thereafter is a substantial material which the
prosecution is entitled to prove at the time of trial. It is necessary to consider,
treating the persons by together as proof of each applicant inflicted fatal injury
or had shared the requisite intentions. Alongwith the arguments of learned
counsel, I have also considered the order passed by the learned trial Court
pertaining to the obligation of applicant – Shaikh Ajimoddin. The alleged
disclosure concerning the place where the car stopped cannot be relied upon by
the prosecution. Equally, the absence of eye witnesses or weapon does not
make prosecution case unattainable. These considerations are on the present
assessment and are not finding of guilt, common intention or clarification of the
offence. As far as bail applications are concerned, prime consideration should
4 / 6
1000-BA-1345-26.odt
be to the prima facie prosecution material, gravity of the accusation, risk of life
and interference and inference to the prosecution witnesses without conducting
a detailed trial. Filing of charge-sheet or reliance on subsequent evidence does
not on its own decide allegation of guilt. In the present case, the investigation
is complete, charge-sheet is filed and the applicants have been in custody for
more than seven months. On the Court’s query, learned A.P.P. fairly submits
that the charge in the present case has not yet been framed.
9. Taking all the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that the material
collected by the investigating agency does not presently attribute a particular
vital act to any one of the present applicants. The available material does not
warrant continuous detention of the present applicants pending trial.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the present applications can be allowed and
the applicants can be released on bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence,
the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The Bail Applications are allowed.
(ii) The applicants shall be released on bail in Crime No. 38 of
2026 dated 15th February, 2026 registered with Yermala Police
Station, Dist. Dharashiv for the offences punishable under
Sections 103(1), 191(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.
50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one or two
solvent surety each in the like amount, subject to the following
conditions :
5 / 6
1000-BA-1345-26.odt
a) The applicants shall attend the trial Court on every date
fixed, unless his attendance is specifically exempted.
b) The applicants shall not enter Kaij Taluka till conclusion
of trial.
c) The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, contact,
threaten, induce or influence the informant or any
prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence.
d) The applicants shall furnish their current residential
addresses and mobile numbers to the Investigating
Officer and the trial Court within seven days of release,
intimate any change forthwith, and attend the
Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further
investigation is required.
e) The applicants shall not leave India without prior
permission of the trial Court and, if they possess
passport, shall deposit the same with the trial Court
within seven days of their release.
f) The applicants shall not involve themselves in any
offence of a similar nature while on bail.
g) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the
prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.
(iii) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to
the decision of these bail applications. The trial Court shall
decide the case on the evidence led before it.
(iv) The Bail Applications are disposed of in the above terms.
( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. )
SSD
6 / 6
Checking your session…